The  BASIS  of  REPRESENTATION 
in  the  MISSIONARY  UNION 


A  HISTORICAL  SURVEY 


By  HENRY  C.  MABIE,  D.  D.,  Home  Secretary 


r 


* 


* 


THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION 
IN  THE  MISSIONARY  UNION 


Improvement  is  asked  for  in  the  form  of  organization  of  our  missionary 
-  societies  and  especially  concerning  the  basis  on  which  representation  shall 
be  expressed.  Has  the  time  come  for  any  fundamental  changes ;  and  if  so, 
what  shall  be  the  form  of  those  changes?  It  is  not  our  purpose  here  to 
discuss  either  of  the  questions  raised  on  the  merits  of  the  case,  but  to  refer 
to  certain  antecedents  in  our  society  history  as  it  stands,  in  the  hope  that 
in  the  light  afforded  the  main  issues  may  be  the  better  understood.  These 
antecedents  are  associated  primarily  with  the  formation  of  the  Missionary 
Union  as  our  oldest  society  organization, — an  organization  which  may 
serve  as  the  type  of  all  our  societies,  inasmuch  as  all  were  modeled  after 
it.  Accordingly,  for  the  sake  of  clearness  what  we  now  shall  have  to  say 
will  concern  only 

the  development  of  the  Missionary  Union. 

There  is  a  history  in  the  case,  which  when  known  will  throw  much 
light  on  the  matters  under  discussion, — a  history  with  which  the  present 
generation  as  a  whole  is  unfamiliar.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  get  at  that  history, 
as  it  never  has  been  published  by  itself,  and  it  is  only  partially  contained 
in  the  annual  reports  of  the  society.  For  the  most  part  it  is  buried  away 
in  the  files  of  our  denominational  papers  of  more  than  a  half-century  ago ; 
and  these  are  difficult  to  get  at  and  to  be  made  available  to  the  general 
public. 

Apart  from  an  editorial  article  by  Dr.  H.  S.  Burrage  in  Zion’s  Advocate 
in  the  month  of  May,  1901,  little  or  no  use  has  yet  been  made  of 

the  very  significant  data  referred  to. 

It  is  important  that  the  successive  phases  of  the  genesis  and  develop¬ 
ment  of  this  oldest  of  our  missionary  societies  be  studied  and  their  teach¬ 
ings  grasped,  if  we  are  to  reach  intelligent  and  safe  conclusions. 

In  the  development  of  our  society  representation  there  have  been  four 
stages,  corresponding  to  the  dates  1814,  1820,  1846  and  1854* 


Stage  I. 


In  1814,  when  our  Baptist  foreign  mission  society  was  organized  and 
known  as  the  “Triennial  Convention,”  the  constitution  made  its  member¬ 
ship  to  consist  of  “delegates,  not  exceeding  two  in  number,  from  missionary 
societies  and  other  Baptist  religious  bodies,  contributing  to  the  treasury  of 
the  convention  annually  a  sum  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars.”  The 
conception  of  a  church  as  an  ecclesiastical  institution  which  then  generally 
prevailed  (dominated  as  the  thought  of  the  time  was  by  severe  hyper-Cal- 
vinistic  ideas  above  which  Protestantism  had  not  yet  been  able  to  rise), 
was  that 


the  church  had  no  function 

to  engage  in  missionary  operations  to  the  heathen.  Of  course,  the  senti¬ 
ment  differed  in  degree  and  force  in  different  sections  of  the  country.  As 
one  evidence  of  the  strength  of  this  belief,  we  may  refer  to  resolutions 
which  were  passed  in  the  Miami  Association  of  Ohio.  In  1835  the  applica¬ 
tion  for  membership  of  a  church  called  Mount  Zion  and  known  to  be  anti¬ 
mission,  was  the  occasion  for  a  resolution  looking  to  a  rupture.  The  sub¬ 
ject  was  deferred  to  the  second  day,  and  then  the  following  was  adopted 
by  a  vote  of  42  to  21 : 


“WHEREAS,  There  is  great  excitement  and  division  of  sentiment  in 
the  Baptist  denomination  relative  to  the  subject  of  the  benevolent  institu¬ 
tions  of  the  day  (so  called),  such  as  Sunday  schools,  Bible,  Missionary, 
Tract  and  Temperance  Societies,  therefore 

“ Resolved ,  That  this  Association  regards  those  said  societies  and  institu¬ 
tions  as  having  no  authority,  foundation  or  support  in  the  SACRED 
SCRIPTURES,  but  we  regard  them  as  having  had  their  origin  in,  and  as 
belonging  exclusively  to  the  World,  and  as  such  we  have  No  Fellowship  for 
them  as  being  of  a  religious  character,  but  do  hereby  declare  non-fellow¬ 
ship  with  those  brethren  and  Churches  who  now  advocate  them. 

“ Resolved ,  That  this  Association  grant  to  the  Churches,  friendly  or  op¬ 
posed,  the  entire  liberty  of  withdrawing  and  forming  a  new  Association 
according  to  their  own  views.” 


In  resistance  of  this  resolution  dissenting  churches,  however,  went  right 
on  making  their  contributions  to  the  obnoxious  societies,  including  the 
Triennial  Convention.  So  strong,  however,  was  the  feeling  of  the  anti¬ 
mission  stalwarts  that  the  next  year,  in  1836,  a  crisis  was  reached.  Sev¬ 
eral  of  the  churches  sent  up  requests  that  the  association  “drop  from  her 
minutes  and  fellowship  all  Churches  now  engaged  in  advocating  or  sup- 

2 

In  Massachusetts,  as  early  as  1802,  a  Baptist  missionary  society  had  been  organized  under  the  influence  of  Samuel 
Stillman,  Thomas  Baldwin,  Lucius  Bolles  and  their  spiritual  compeers,  and  was  conducting  representative  forms  of 
domestic  mission  work  in  widely  extended  frontier  regions.  Similar  movements  were  inaugurated  in  New  York  under 
the  influence  of  John  Williams  in  1806,  and  perhaps  in  a  few  other  localities.  Thus  was  preparing  a  soil  for  the  nourish¬ 
ment  of  the  foreign  mission  enterprise,  which  later  was  precipitated  upon  the  denomination  through  the  peculiar  provi¬ 
dence  of  Adoniram  Judson's  conversion  to  Baptist  views,  and  other  influences  connected  therewith.  With  such  excep¬ 
tions,  however,  our  general  statement  will  hold,  that  the  view  of  our  churches,  as  a  rule,  respecting  their  missionary 
function  was  exceedingly  limited,  even  narrow. 


porting  the  societies  and  institutions  against  which  the  Association  de¬ 
clared  non-fellowship  last  year;”  and  it  was 

“ Resolved ,  That  we  drop  from  our  minutes  the  following  Churches,  viz., 
Sixth  (now  Ninth)  Street,  of  Cincinnati,  Middletown,  Lebanon  and  Day- 
ton.”  The  resolution  carried  by  a  vote  of  35  to  6,  “the  rest  being  neutral, 
except  those  criminated  by  the  resolution.” 

Then  apart  from  the  question  of  whether  or  not  the  Church  had  a  mis¬ 
sionary  duty  to  perform,  on  another  side  of  its  constitution  it  was  believed 
that  a  Baptist  church  has 


no  right  to  delegate  its  powers 

to  an  outside  organization  of  any  sort,  even  missionary,  for  doing  work 
extraneous  to  the  church  itself.  A  completer  deadlock  against  practical 
missionary  operations  could  scarcely  be  conceived. 

Now  the  only  way  in  which  the  few  devoted  missionary  spirits  in  our 
churches  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  century  who  had  come  to  entertain 
a  different  view  of  the  function  of  the  church  in  relation  to  the  heathen, 
could  circumvent  the  narrower  notion  prevailing,  was  to  organize  outside 
the  church  little  missionary  societies.  They  corresponded  to  what  now 
exist  among  us  and  are  known  as  Ramabai  Circles.  These  little  societies 
sprang  into  being  at  first  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  affording  support  to 
Adoniram  Judson,  the  announcement  of  whose  conversion  to  Baptist  views 
proved  so  awakening  to  many  of  our  fathers.  Such  societies  sprang  up  in 
Massachusetts,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  the  Caro- 
linas,  Georgia  and  elsewhere.  From  these  several  little 


spontaneous,  individualistic  societies 

the  Triennial  Convention  was  formed.  Thirty-three  delegates  only  ap¬ 
peared  to  compose  the  body  at  its  first  meeting  in  Philadelphia  in  1814. 
This  was  the  only  form  of  representation  that  then  was  practicable,  and 
yet  would  preserve  the  moral  aims  of  the  movement.  It  was  a  case  in 
which  the  spirit,  latent  in  a  remnant  of  our  churches,  far  transcended  the 
letter  of  their  formal  constitution  as  viewed  by  the  great  mass  of  Baptist 
churches  of  the  time.  It  was  the  expression  of  the  church  within  the 
church. 


Stage  II. 

In  1820  an  amendment  was  adopted  allowing  constituent  bodies  a  right 
to  send  an  additional  delegate  for  every  two  hundred  dollars  contributed 


beyond  the  first  one  hundred.  This  was  simply  to  extend  the  privileges. 
By  this  time,  moreover,  such  was  the  improvement  in  the  missionary 
sentiment,  especially  in  the  older  states,  under  the  stimulating  labors  of 
Luther  Rice,  that  collections  for  the  cause  began  to  be  taken  in  many  of  the 
churches  and  at  associational  gatherings. 

Stage  III. 

In  1845,  owing  to  the  division  of  opinion  among  the  Baptists  north  and 
south  concerning  the  slavery  question,  the  Baptists  of  the  south  withdrew 
from  the  Triennial  Convention,  and  founded  the  Southern  Baptist  Con¬ 
vention.  Simultaneously  the  Baptists  of  the  north — that  part  of  the  con¬ 
vention  that  was  left — adopted  a  new  constitution,  and  gave  to  the  new 
organization  the  name  of 

The  American  Baptist  Missionary  Union. 

Membership  was  confined  to  Life  Members,  and  such  only.  Former  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  old  Triennial  Convention  who  were  present  at  the  first  meeting 
of  the  Missionary  Union  became  constituent  members.  Besides  these, 
other  persons  could  become  life  members  by  the  payment  at  one  time  of 
not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars. 

It  was  at  this  first  meeting  of  the  Missionary  Union  in  Brooklyn  in 
1846  that  for  the  first  time  the  question  was  raised  concerning  a  church  as 
such  representing  itself  by  annual  membership  in  the  Baptist  missionary 
society.  The  Rev.  Alfred  Bennett  offered  the  following  resolution : — 

“That  any  church  or  other  religious  body  choosing  to_  represent  itself 
in  one  annual  meeting  only,  upon  the  payment  of  one  hundred  dollars  shall 
enjoy  for  the  time  being  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  member.” 

This  brought  on  an  earnest  debate  which  continued  through  the  denom¬ 
inational  press  and  at  the  annual  meetings  of  the  society  for  at  least  three 
years.  Waiving  for  the  moment  the  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  more 
than  one  kind  of  membership,  it  is  important  that 

the  reasons  for  conditioning  membership 

of  either  sort  upon  the  contribution  of  a  given  sum  of  money,  should  be 
perceived.  There  was  in  this  no  thought  or  assumption  of  creating  an  aris¬ 
tocracy,  a  moneyocracy.  a  financial  oligarchy.  The  money  condition  was 
included  simply  because  it  afforded  the  most  feasible  and  indeed  the 
only  available  prima  facie  evidence  of  interest  in  the  work,  of  loyalty  to  the  ends 
for  which  the  society  was  organized.  There  was  need  of  safeguarding 
the  control  of  an  institution  which  was  so  much  in  advance  of  the  narrow¬ 
ness,  prejudice,  and  even  avowed  opposition  which  characterized  the 


4 


greater  portion  of  our  people,  by  conditions  which  required  evidence  of 
loyalty.  The  reason  for  this  was  that  the  people  as  a  whole  were  sup¬ 
posedly,  nay,  certainly,  not  educated  up  to  a  proper  estimate  of  the  ad¬ 
vanced  undertaking. 

“Why,”  it  was  argued,  “should  individuals  or  churches  who  evince  no 
loyalty  to  the  purposes  of  a  movement  by  contributing  to  its  support  be 
permitted  to  have  a  hand  in  its  control,  until  they  afford  evidence  of  a 
different  mind  on  the  subject?”  The  balance  which  the  fathers  held  was 
even ;  no  church  that  loved  the  work  and  would  work  up  to  its  worth  and 
needs,  undoubtedly  a  matter  of  slow  growth,  was  excluded  by  either  the 
life  or  annual  membership  principle,  expressing  as  that  principle  did  in  its 
financial  condition  the  best  available  and  most 

patent  evidence  of  loyalty  to  the  cause. 

Returning  now  to  Mr.  Bennett’s  amendment,  it  was  urged  by  those 
favoring  it  that  “life  membership,  which  was  the  only  sort  of  membership 
permitted  by  the  new  constitution  of  the  Missionary  Union,  was  a  retro¬ 
gression  even  upon  the  past  policy  of  the  General  Convention.  The  older 
constitution  permitted  annual  membership.”  It  was  said  that  by  permit¬ 
ting  annual  members  to  be  appointed  by  churches  year  by  year  new  people 
would  be  brought  into  touch  with  the  work.  This  feature  would  supply 
an  element  both  democratic  and  popular.  There  were  many  who  favored 
the  more  popular  representation,  but  there  were  also  many  who  opposed 
the  amendment  and  for  most  conscientious  reasons.  They  were  afraid  of 
the  representative  principle,  as  generally  understood,  being  brought  into 
Baptist  polity.  They  regarded  it  as  a  dangerous  innovation.  They  feared 
it,  as  applied  to  a  voluntary  missionary  organization,  which  the  Mission¬ 
ary  Union  confessedly  was. 

The  proposed  amendment  also  presumptively  provided  for  the  exercise 
of  an  authority  which,  in  certain  exigencies  that  might  arise,  would  enable 
a  body  thus  constituted  to  embarrass  the  movement  which  at  that  time 
was  believed  in  by  only  a  limited  number  of  our  people.  The  fathers 
resisted  the  coming  in  of  the  representative  principle  to  control  the  society 
for  the  same  reason  that  a  board  of  managers  of  an  incorporated  college 
or  theological  seminary  among  us  today  would  resist  the  authority  of  any 
number  of  churches  to  come  into  its  control  in  a  representative  way  to 
legislate  for  it.  It  was  said  that  “representation  (in  its  full  sense)  in¬ 
cludes  legislation,  and  legislation  includes  taxation.” 

Moreover,  many  of  the  fathers  of  that  time  did  not  believe  that 

a  Baptist  church  was  “a  pure  democracy,” 

and  hence  a  law  to  itself.  They  believed  that  a  Baptist  church  on  one  side 

5 


of  its  constitution  is  democratic ;  no  member  could  come  into  it  but  upon 
his  own  voluntary  act,  and  no  member  could  impose  a  law  upon  another 
member.  They  however  believed  that  on  another  side  of  its  constitution 
a  Baptist  church  is  monarchists  as  well  as  democratic.  Christ  was  its  sole 
and  sovereign  head  and  final  law  giver,  and  to  him  it  was  responsible. 
“One  is  your  Master/’ — that  was  the  monarchists  side ;  “and  all  ye  are 
brethren,” — that  was  the  democratic  side.  In  their  view  it  required  the 
two  halves  to  constitute  the  whole  truth  concerning  the  New  Testament 
church. 

It  was  not  that  the  early  promoters  of  the  society  would  not  welcome 
the  most  extended  participation  in  the  work  and  control  of  the  society,  but 
that  they  hesitated  to  do  this  at  the  expense  and  risk  of  sacrificing  a  great 
principle,  as  they  believed,  a  divine  principle,  grounded  in  New  Testament 
precedent,  and  therefore  in  divine  law,  for  the  maintenance  of  which  they 
were  responsible  to  its  divine  author. 

These  fathers  did  not  believe  that  they  could  play  fast  and  loose  with 
New  Testament  precedent — precedent  which  implied  divine  law  as  con¬ 
cerns  polity.  They  reasoned  that  their  brethren  who  took  the  other  view 
were  really  proposing  to  use  a  voluntary  missionary  organization  as  a  pou 
sto  on  which  the  churches  as  ecclesiastical  bodies  could  enact  legislation 
for  a  confederacy  of  churches.  In  other  words,  by  such  indirection,  logi¬ 
cally,  the  outcome  would  be  that 

the  denomination  as  such  would  take  on  visible  and  organic  form, 

a  result  unthought  of  by  the  early  Baptist  mind.  This  in  the  minds  of  the 
fathers  would  have  been  subversive  of  the  very  foundations  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment  church  polity.  For  three  years  our  wisest  men  wrestled  with  the 
question.  For  a  whole  year  it  was  in  the  hands  of  a  very  strong  committee 
of  nine  members,  consisting  of  William  R.  Williams,  Morgan  J.  Rhees, 
Elisha  Tucker,  James  FI.  Duncan,  Adam  Wilson,  Greenleaf  S.  Webb, 
Pharcellus  Church,  John  Booth,  and  John  Stevens. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Union  held  in  Troy,  New  York,  in  1848,  the  com¬ 
mittee  presented 

an  extended  and  careful  report. 

That  committee  reasoned  as  follows : — 111  any  attempt  to  create  for  the 
churches,  through  voluntary  associations  or  otherwise,  a  legislative  power 
we  are  sinning  against  the  first  principles  of  our  Baptist  polity,  and  what  is 
much  worse,  usurping  upon  the  prerogatives  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
“Delegate”  and  “representative,”  it  was  said,  are  not  equivalent  terms.  A 
delegate  is  not  a  representative,  in  the  popular  and  right  sense  of  the  word. 
A  representative  ( e .  g.,  a  congressman  of  the  United  States),  represents  in 
some  remote  spot,  as  if  in  person  themselves  there,  the  body  of  people  send- 


6 


ing  him ;  and  his  presence  binds  on  those  sending  him  all  the  legitimate  acts 
of  the  assembly  to  which  he  is  sent.  “If  our  views  as  Baptists  are  correct, 
our  churches  cannot  give  legislative  power,  because  they  have  it  not;  and 
councils  or  voluntary  societies  have  therefore  no  right  to  take  legislative 
power  as  a  gift  from  the  churches,  even  should  the  churches  assume  to 
make  such  a  gift.  But,  overlooking  this  fact, — forgetting  that  the  legisla¬ 
tion  of  the  church  was  settled  and  closed  centuries  since,  looking  at  the 
democratic  side  of  the  church  organization  in  the  voluntary  character  of 
its  membership,  and  overlooking  the  regal  side  of  that  organization  in  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  then,  on  this  false  assumption  that 
the  church  is  merely  and  purely  a  democracy,  building  the  inference  that 
like  any  other  democracy  it  should  make  and  mend  its  own  laws,  on  these 
false  premises  building  still  another  false  assumption,  that  the  several 
independent  democracies  of  the  various  separate  churches  may  come  to¬ 
gether  by  their  representatives,  and  make  one  joint  democratic  confeder¬ 
acy  which  shall  legislate  for  its  constituent  churches, — and  yet  another 
false  assumption,  that  the  messenger  or  delegate  of  the  primitive  churches 
was  what  we  call  a  representative,  sent  to  similar  confederacies ; — thus,  we 
say,  heaping 


baseless  assumptions  one  on  another, — 

good  men,  loving  freedom  and  Scripture,  build  up  a  system  which  is 
neither  friendly  to  scriptural  truth  or  practical  freedom.” 

This  report  was  sent  by  mail  to  the  seventeen  hundred  members 
of  the  Union  with  the  question :  “Are  you  in  favor  of  so  amending  the 
third  Article  of  the  Constitution  that  annual  membership  may  be  created 
(by  the  churches)  by  the  payment  of  fifty  dollars”?  831  members  re¬ 
sponded,  412  answering  yes,  and  419  no.  The  other  members  by  not 
responding  at  all  indicated  their  willingness  to  let  matters  stand  as  they 
were. 

At  the  meeting  in  Philadelphia  in  1849  a  great  majority  of  the  members 
present  voted  to  leave  the  constitution  unchanged.  Thus  Mr.  Bennett’s 
amendment,  after  three  years  of  consideration,  failed. 


Stage  IV :  A  Historical  Compromise. 


In  1854,  however,  the  conservative  sentiment  referred  to  above  had 
become  so  modified  that  the  privilege  was  conceded  of  sending  annual 
members  to  the  meetings  of  the  Union  on  the  part  of  churches  which  con¬ 
tributed.  Thus  we  have  seen  that  historically  a  compromise  position  was 
adopted,  and  with  slight  variations  it  has  been  since  the  accepted  policy 
of  the  Missionary  Union. 


7 


There  are  now  four  classes  of  membership  possible,  viz.,  that  of  mis¬ 
sionaries  of  the  Union  during  their  term  of  service,  Life  Membership, 
Honorary  Life  Membership,  and  Annual  Membership.  It  should  be  ob¬ 
served,  however,  when  the  privilege  of  representation  by  the  churches 
was  granted,  it  was  conceded  not  to  all  the  Baptist  churches  in  the  Union’s 
territory  indiscriminately,  but  only  to  such  as  proved  they  were  en  rapport 
with  the  purposes  of  the  society,  by  contributing  to  its  work. 

Again,  let  it  be  noticed,  that  memberships  in  all  cases  are  still  made 
upon 


some  prima  facie  evidence 

that  there  is  a  loyal  and  sympathetic  interest  on  the  part  of  those  who  are 
to  control  in  the  affairs  of  the  Union.  The  evidence  of  the  missionary’s 
interest  is  that  he  is  personally  in  the  service.  The  evidence  on  the  part 
of  others  is  that  they  support  the  cause, — not  that  they  are  wealthy.  Any 
person  however  poor  in  earthly  store,  who  has  character  enough  to  im¬ 
press  any  given  church  that  he  or  she  would  be  a  suitable  messenger  on 
behalf  of  such  church,  is  as  eligible  to  membership  in  the  Union  as  the 
millionaire.  Of  course,  the  degree  of  ability  to  pay  one’s  expenses  for  such 
service  would  enter  into  any  given  case,  and  in  some  instances  would  still 
debar  the  worthiest  of  people  from  attendance  upon  the  meetings.  But 
this  should  not  be  charged  as  a  fault  in  the  form  of  society  organization. 

We  have  seen  that  the  principle  of  church  representation  was  histori¬ 
cally  a  compromise.  The  compromise  itself  was  virtually  this,  that  the 
individualistic  principle  on  which  the  society  was  organized  was  not  to  be 
set  aside,  while  in  a  modified  sense  representatives  of  the  churches  were  to 
be  welcomed  to  full  privileges  of  the  society.  It  was  regarded  as  not  un¬ 
fitting  that  churches  should  be  requested  to  send  some  one  or  more  of 
their  members  to  attend  and  participate  in  the  deliberations  and  acts  of  the 
Union,  and  in  turn  bring  back  to  the  churches  some  of  the  inspiration  re¬ 
ceived. 

In  this  sense  it  has  always  been  understood  that  “annual  members,”  as 
they  are  termed,  or  “messengers,”  are  sent.  Such  a  conception  and  prac¬ 
tice  involved 


the  minimum  of  risk  consistent 


with  the  preservation  of  the  individualistic  principle  in  the  society  on  the 
one  hand,  and  with  the  limits  of  the  ecclesiastical  function  of  the  body 
represented  on  the  other ! 

This  compromise  was  slowly  reached,  not  because  any  member  of  the 
Missionary  Union  had  any  objection  to  a  large  and  hearty  participation 


8 


of  the  churches  as  such  in  the  work:  rather,  in  the  'belief  of  the  founders 
and  promoters  of  the  Missionary  Union,  such  work  is  a  prime  duty  of  every 
church,  as  the  injunction,  “Go  disciple  all  nations,”  is  the  initial  command 
in  its  charter,  ana  it  was  hoped  and  expected  that  increasingly  the  churches 
would  prove  themselves 

really  eligible  to  representation 

in  such  work.  Historically,  however,  the  church — the  traditional  Baptist 
church  of  the  early  times  in  this  country — did  not  measure  up  to  its  high 
calling  of  extending  the  gracious  offer  of  the  gospel  to  the  heathen  world, 
and  could  not,  at  least  while  declining  to  contribute,  fitly  be  invited  to 
control  in  the  work  which  exceptional,  individual  members  in  the  church 
and  far  in  advance  of  it,  as  a  whole,  had  instituted.  As  things  now  are,  on 
the  basis  of  the  several  and  gradual  readjustments  referred  to,  and  as  mis¬ 
sionary  sentiment  has  grown  in  the  denomination,  the  churches  generally 
for  many  years  have  had  large  privileges  in  the  Union,  and  the  privileges 
ever  increase  as  the  churches  prove  their  real  partnership  in  the  cause,  by 
actually  supporting  it.  The  old  basis  of  life  membership  or  honorary 

Life  Membership  is  properly  retained  as  a  conserving  element 

in  a  time-honored  organization,  with  vast  and  ever-increasing  responsi¬ 
bilities.  Even  now,  on  the  present  basis  of  interest  and  giving  expressed 
by  the  churches,  it  is  possible  for,  say,  five  thousand  annual  members  at 
least  to  represent  the  churches  at  any  annual  meeting  of  the  Union,  if  the 
churches  entitled  to  do  so  would  only  act  upon  their  constitutional  privi¬ 
lege.  Doubtless,  as  things  even  now  imperfectly  work,  owing  to  distances 
which  have  to  be  traveled  and  the  expense  required  for  members  to  get 
to  the  meetings,  as  a  rule  fully  one-half  of  the  voting  members  at  a  given 
anniversary  of  the  Union  are  annual  members  representing  the  churches 
direct.  But  more  than  this,  those  who  are  life  members  or  honorary  life 
members  with  scarcely  an  exception,  are  also 

highly  representative  of  the  churches. 

They  come  right  out  of  their  inner  spiritual  circles.  Doubtless  three- 
fourths  of  them  are  persons  whom  the  churches  by  their  own  votes  have 
desired  thus  to  honor.*  They  are  presumptively  the  fittest  persons  that 
could  be  chosen,  and  thus  in  the  truest  sense  these  life  members  represent 
the  missionary  churches  of  the  denomination. 


*The  larger  and  wealthier  givers  in  recent  times  rarely  take  the  pains  to  constitute  themselves  or 
others  Life  Members.  The  churches  do  this  by  official  vote. 


9 


Many  are  now  reasoning  that  with  the  greatly  increased  participation 
of  our  churches  as  a  whole  in  the  work  of  our  societies,  the  time  has  fully 
come  when  the  churches  as  such,  indiscriminately  and  exclusively,  should 
be  called  in  to  take  over  the  responsibility  of  managing  and  prosecuting 
what  previously  has  been  done  by  societies  with  a  combined  individualistic 
and  church  basis  of  representation.  Whether  or  not  this  can  yet  be  wisely 
done,  whether  we  can  find  a  way  of  doing  it  on  the  basis  of  our  polity, 
without 


creating  more  difficulties  than  we  eliminate 

is  the  question.  Whether  also  this  can  be  done  without  the  risk  of  grief 
to  the  feelings  of  a  great  body  of  fast  and  proven  friends  of  the  Union,  for 
the  very  uncertain  advantage  that  might  accrue  from  a  less  responsible 
and  more  nominal  constituency,  is  a  matter  seriously  to  be  weighed.  The¬ 
oretically,  of  course,  the  time  may  come  when  churches  as  such  will  more 
ideally  care  for  this  cause,  but  have  we  the  evidence  that  the  time  is  yet? 
The  Missionary  Union  certainly  has  long  been  laboring  to  enlist  the  rank 
and  file  of  our  people  in  supporting  and  extending  missions  to  the  heathen. 
Our  churches  and  individuals  without  exception  have  been  besought  every¬ 
where  to  come  into  the  closest  possible  partnership  and  proprietorship 
under  God  in  this  work.  Up  to  this  time  less  than  one-half  of  our  Baptist 
churches  have  become  sharers  in  the  work  to  any  degree.  In  that  portion 
of  our  churches  which  do  nominally  contribute,  we  may  reckon  that  less 
than  one-third  of  the  membership  ever  participate.  Taken  as  a  whole, 
among  the  nine  hundred  thousand  Baptists  of  the  North,  the  average 
annual  gifts  to  the  Missionary  Union  and  its  auxiliaries  are  at  the  most 
only  about  sixty  cents  per  member ;  the  bulk  of  our  offerings  comes  from 
three  or  four  states.  Does  this  furnish  sufficient  evidence  of  loyalty  on  the 
part  of  our  churches  as  a  whole  to  foreign  missions  to  justify  the  risk  that 
would  be  incurred  in  suddenly  revolutionizing  even  the  generous  basis  of 
representation  now  possible  and  practicable,  and  substituting  therefor  a 
less  responsible  and  less  natural  controlling  authority  over  the  vast  and 
weighty  interests  involved? 


As  throwing  a  most  valuable  side-light  upon  the  entire  question  of  the 
genesis  and  nature  of  voluntary  missionary  organizations  which  have 
sprung  up  since  the  Reformation,  we  quote  a  few  paragraphs  from  “The 
Outline  History  of  Protestant  Missions,”  by  Prof.  Gustav  Warneck  of 
Halle,  Germany.  This  is  a  work  of  the  highest  rank  on  the  whole  subject 
of  missions,  translated  from  the  German,  and  published  by  the  Fleming  H. 
Revell  Company  within  the  past  year.  Prof.  Warneck  in  the  opening 
chapters  of  his  work  brings  out  the  strange,  almost  inexplicable,  fact  that 


io 


the  reformers  from  Luther  on  till  the  time  of  A.  H.  Francke  were  in  little 
or  no  practical  sympathy  with  any  plans  for  the  systematic  evangelization 
of  the  heathen  world.  He  then  goes  on  to  show  that  with  the  work  of 
Francke  and  the  pietists  of  his  time  there  sprang  up  free  voluntary  move¬ 
ments  among  spiritual  and  elect  souls,  quite  apart  from  the  official 
churches,  even  the  reformed  churches  of  the  time.  When  we  find  Prof. 
Warneck,  the  greatest  living  authority  on  the  history  of  missions,  who 
is  neither  a  Baptist  nor  a  Congregationalist,  but  a  Lutheran  and  a  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  state  church,  speaking  as  he  does,  no  one  will  be  suspected  of 
mere  partisanship  in  reference  to  the  present  question  at  issue  concerning 
the  place  and  function  of  the  typical  voluntary  missionary  society  when 
these  significant  paragraphs  are  referred  to.  Prof.  Warneck’s  testimony 
concerns  not  merely  the  status  of  the  organizations  of  a  particular  denom¬ 
ination  in  America  or  Europe,  but  the  weal  of  the  entire  missionary  cause 
among  all  communions,  in  all  countries  and  in  all  times. 

Prof.  Warneck  uses  the  following  striking  language : 

“In  this  exigency  when  the  official  church,  having  taken  up  an  attitude 
to  missions  partly  of  indifference  and  partly  of  hostility,  declined  the  ser¬ 
vice,  no  other  course  was  open  than  to  appoint  representatives  independent 
of  the  church  organization  to  whose  hands  the  work  of  missions  might  be 
committed.  And  thus  of  dire  necessity  there  was  born  within  the 
Protestant  world  that  free  association  which  was  thenceforth  to  play  in 
its  history  a  role  of  eminent  importance.  That  this  forced  birth  did  not 
happen  without  the  leading  of  Providence  is  today  readily  acknowledged  even 
by  the  official  church  itself,  it  having  long  ago  exchanged  its  attitude  of 
opposition  to  missions  into  that  of  friendship.  For  with  the  free  associa¬ 
tion  founded  on  the  Christian  principle  of  voluntaryism,  specially  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  enlisting  for  service  of  the  energies  of  the  believing  laity, 
there  came  into  operation  in  the  evangelical  church  not  only  a  form  but 
a  power  of  life  which,  both  as  regards  the  work  of  salvation  at  home  and  the 
extension  of  Christianity  among  the  heathen,  has  done  a  work  which 
the  official  church  could  not  have  done  by  its  official  representatives .” 


“The  free  alliance  of  believers  in  missionary  societies  has  become  an 
inestimable  blessing  to  the  church  itself ;  it  began  in  the  church  the  removal  of 
a  social  defect  which  was  very  materially  to  blame  for  the  fact  that  until 
the  end  of  the  previous  century  there  had  been  inside  of  Protestantism  so 
little  of  combined  action.  These  societies,  which  became  more  and  more 
naturalized  outlets  for  the  activities  of  love  in  the  church  at  home,  supplied  to 
Protestantism  an  evangelical  substitute  for  the  corporations  which  the 
Church  of  Rome  possesses  in  its  Orders.  They  had  their  starting  point 
already  in  the  Ecclesiolce  in  Ecclesia  of  Pietism.” 


“It  was  a  sign  of  the  soundness  of  the  present  constitution  of  missions,  that 
single  individuals,  who  had  been  persuaded  of  their  divine  call  to  mission¬ 
ary  service,  did  not  go  to  the  heathen  as  independent  individuals,  an  error 
which  in  recent  times  has  taken  the  place  of  a  regular  sending  in  the  case 
of  the  so-called  free  (or  independent)  missionaries, — but  that  the  begin¬ 
ning  was  made  with  the  founding  at  home  of  missionary  institutions  in  the  form 
of  free  societies.  Only  by  such  regular  missionary  institutions — not  to  speak  of 
other  advantages — was  it  possible  that  missions  could  strike  those  deep  roots  at 
home  without  which  they  zvould  have  had  no  secure  and  lasting  support .” 

“The  missionary  duty  of  the  church  is  (now)  generally  acknowledged 
by  its  officers,  its  synods,  and  its  clergymen,  and  that  not  merely  in  theory. 
The  church  in  its  official  capacity  has  become  an  active  co-worker.  Indeed 
it  may  be  said  that  its  office-bearers  are  its  leaders  in  missionary  endeavor. 
This  fact  has  repeatedly  suggested  the  idea  of  giving  over  the  whole  man¬ 
agement  of  the  missionary  enterprise  to  be  matter  of  (State)  church  ad¬ 
ministration  ;  but  with  the  exception  of  a  single  experiment  of  this  kind  in 
Sweden,  the  conviction  has  gradually  become  clearer  that  the  carrying  on  of  mis¬ 
sions  by  the  free  society  is  of  divine  leading,  and  is  to  be  retained  as  a  blessing  both 
to  missions  and  to  the  church;  only  the  sound  reciprocal  attitude  between  the  free 
missionary  societies,  and  the  official  church  must  be  wrought  out  into  preciser 
form ” 

In  the  light  of  the  above  quotations  and  their  bearing  upon  the  fore¬ 
going  historical  presentation,  will  it  not  be  evident  to  every  thoughtful 
mind  that  the  very  kernel  of  the  co-ordination  question  which  for  the  past 
two  years  has  occupied  the  Baptist  mind  in  this  country  is  reduced  to  this, 
namely :  What  is  the  reciprocal  relation  that  should  exist  and  be  fostered  between 
the  voluntary  missionary  organisations  which  have  sprung  up  in  the  Baptist  de¬ 
nomination  in  this  land,  and  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  known  as  independent  Baptist 
churches,  from  which  the  constituents  of  these  societies  have  been  drawn f  There 
is  doubtless  a  reciprocal  relation  to  be  considered, — a  relation  which  has 
always  been  cherished.  The  societies  unquestionably  owe  much  to  the 
churches,  and  in  turn  the  churches  owe  perhaps  even  more  under  God  to 
the  societies,  which  have  really  been  to  them  what  Warneck  calls  the  eccle- 
siolce  in  ecclesia. 

Shall  the  societies  then  now  be  called  upon  in  a  revolutionary  way  to 
abdicate  the  position,  the  standing,  even  the  autonomy,  as  responsible  chiefly 
to  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  which  in  the  providence  of  God  has  come  to 
characterize  them,  in  the  interest  of  a  more  severe  ecclesiastical  control? 
Or  shall  the  churches  on  their  part  continue  more  and  more  to  foster  the 
divinest  ideals  for  which  the  societies  stand,  while  the  societies  on  their 
part  seek  increasingly  to  win  and  deserve  the  largest  confidence  of  the 
churches  out  of  which  under  God  they  have  sprung? 


12 


